Costs going Sky high

[santa claus]

What a bummer. Virgin 1 was renamed to Channel One recently following its takeover by Sky...and from 1 Feb Sky has closed it down.

ok, it may not be the end of the World (unless you're a Trekkie) but less choice on Freeview could be the start of the rot.

I don't have Sky and never will. I pay my BBC TV licence because I have to but someone said that part of the fee subsidises Sky. Is that true?

Is 'Freeview' designed to get us all hooked before the hard sell? I know many here won't be bothered (apparently, much of the Channel One content can be streamed online anyway) but there's a principle and lots of people who don't have PC's; their Freeview box can be one of their main sources of affordable entertainment.

They're closing swimming pools, libraries, community centres and now the TV is going down the Swanee. The only thing guaranteed these days is a Big Bonus for Bankers.

[TheAnimus]

Even then the bonus pool has taken a small beating with the latest announcement from Downing Street this morning.

Myself I blame Sky, a certain aussie (obviously therefore a chrimbo (is 'chrimbo' an offensive term to those who commit crime?)) has far too much power in the media, he controls the channel, the distrabution and far too much of the content. Its the Sun what won it.

Also a large portion of the TV is just junk, we have many channels which are harmogonised trash which costs little to produce and has few viewers suffering posative feedback spiraling inwards on itself ITV style.

I seldom watch TV now adays I'll buy a box set, appreciate the full 1080p of my blurarys (which cost a fraction of a sky sub).

[Barakka]

I don't have Sky and never will. I pay my BBC TV licence because I have to but someone said that part of the fee subsidises Sky. Is that true?

IIRC it's because Sky's satellites broadcast FreeSat allowing the remotely located peeps in the UK to get freeview.

[Great Eastern]

Sky's satellites

No such thing - Astra own the satellites.

Sky simply rents transponder space along with the likes of ITV, BBC, Channel 4 and 5 etc

[Jay]

thats true, Sky do not own any Satillites. I think BSB used to own some though.

[Barakka]

No such thing - Astra own the satellites.

Sky simply rents transponder space along with the likes of ITV, BBC, Channel 4 and 5 etc

Fair Enough, Skys Transponder space on the Astra satellites broadcasts FreeSat which the BBC needed to have in order to reach the coverage percentage needed before they could start switching the SD broadcast off.

[Great Eastern]

Fair Enough, Skys Transponder space on the Astra satellites broadcasts FreeSat which the BBC needed to have in order to reach the coverage percentage needed before they could start switching the SD broadcast off.

Freesat's EGP (which is all Freesat is) broadcasts on the Eurobird 1 satellite and shares transponder space with ITV1 HD

[Barakka]

Freesat's EGP (which is all Freesat is) broadcasts on the Eurobird 1 satellite and shares transponder space with ITV1 HD

For the FreeSat service operated between the BBC and ITV yes, but this was about Sky and the BBC... Sky have a seperate service FreeSat from Sky which I presume they broadcast over their normal system as it uses normal Sky Digiboxes/Dishes.

I remember the deal being done between Sky and the BBC as they (BBC) were under massive pressure to stop delaying the start date of the digital switchover but were struggling to get to the minimum coverage required in isolated areas - the deal with Sky for their FreeSat (2004) was a good while before the BBC/ITV FreeSat offering (2008) and was primarily to get the switchover started as soon as possible. I would presume this is why they subsidise Sky.

[HSK]

So that's what happened to Virgin 1 / Channel One No more Voyager. Although they did finish up the series just before it vanished.

[santa claus]

Thanks all for the info about subsidy.

.......(is 'chrimbo' an offensive term to those who commit crime?)....

Come on, get over it. It isn't like you to go all sensitive on us. The mods have a job to do, you were reminded of the rules politely and that's that. Besides, despite our differences of opinion, I would (no, really) miss you if you were banned .

Oh, and yes a £2.5bn levy sounds good until you compare it to the £6bn bonuses they're dishing out to each other.

So that's what happened to Virgin 1 / Channel One No more Voyager. Although they did finish up the series just before it vanished.

Government: the final frontier. These are the policies of the Coalition Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to extol headline grabbing ideas, to seek out working class life and decimate it, to blindly go where no one in their right mind has gone before .

[TheAnimus]

The coalition levy thing is just a bit of an appeasement joke. If they actually did squeeze the golden cow might leave, and probably would.

A lot of the best paid city workers are economic imigrants afterall, when working on the best performing trading desk I've ever supported, I was one of 12 people on the desk. There was 1 other 'English' guy, and I don't mean english in the BNP way, I mean someone who hadn't moved here in just the last 5-7 years.

We don't produce a large number of highly skilled workers. Why stay? Lets also not forget that many of these firms are not and never have been British.

Its a tricky balancing act, but a lot of it is due to the public perception. We have ****s like allen sugar which many people think are the typical business man, the typical wealthy person, rather than just Sky's bitch. People seem to actively hate those getting bonuses, its crazy. If someone has gotten a £500k bonus, then £250k+ is going straight to fund schools, hospitals and people who gawd bless don't feel like working. If you personally feel that they are been paid too much, then try working in their industry doing their job, the city is one of the best employers out there (the civil service for instance would immediately reject my CV due to lack of GCSEs and ALevels).

[badass]

The coalition levy thing is just a bit of an appeasement joke. If they actually did squeeze the golden cow might leave, and probably would.

A lot of the best paid city workers are economic imigrants afterall, when working on the best performing trading desk I've ever supported, I was one of 12 people on the desk. There was 1 other 'English' guy, and I don't mean english in the BNP way, I mean someone who hadn't moved here in just the last 5-7 years.

We don't produce a large number of highly skilled workers. Why stay? Lets also not forget that many of these firms are not and never have been British.

Its a tricky balancing act, but a lot of it is due to the public perception. We have ****s like allen sugar which many people think are the typical business man, the typical wealthy person, rather than just Sky's bitch. People seem to actively hate those getting bonuses, its crazy. If someone has gotten a £500k bonus, then £250k+ is going straight to fund schools, hospitals and people who gawd bless don't feel like working. If you personally feel that they are been paid too much, then try working in their industry doing their job, the city is one of the best employers out there (the civil service for instance would immediately reject my CV due to lack of GCSEs and ALevels).

Any comments on this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ist-of-century
Forget the publication's propensity for bull**** for a minute - the bit that interests me is this

At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.

Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.

But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this.

The 2 bits in bold, if they take the mick even more. If this article is correct, the bank levy increase of circa £0.8 billion to £2.5 billion is much smaller than the taking the mick tax breaks they are about to get. You can't have it so you can offset foreign costs like that when the profit will not be taxed.

[santa claus]

If you personally feel that they are been paid too much, then try working in their industry doing their job, the city is one of the best employers out there (the civil service for instance would immediately reject my CV due to lack of GCSEs and ALevels).

They are paid too much and whenever there's an opportunity to twist the knife in the gut of the greedy, one has to take it. I don't care about all these so-called economic immigrant wonder kids, they can sod off back under whatever stone they crawled out from, we've always had the homegrown talent to do whatever needs to be done.

By definition, economic immigrants are here because the pickings are rich; if they feel they can do better elsewhere, then what and who is stopping them packing their bags and fat wallets and buggering off? Good riddance too.

But they won't leave; that's a red herring put about by the gimme-my-big-bonus crowd.

Money, it's hit, don't give me that do goody good bs.

[TheAnimus]

I hadn't heard any of this, I think I might need to buy a copy of private eye!

The problem is the author is clearly so incredibly biased it is hard for me to take anything he says as truthfullness, because ultimately the legislation is too complicated for us, the dear ignorant reader to understand. Ironically half the commentards then talk about elitisim.

I find the idea of been able to net off expensese that are not taxable a little odd in that context and can't think why they would bring it in. It quite simply isn't in his interest too. The amount of money we are talking about in terms of a companies dividends is only a small percentage of it, how would the tories lot profit.... That idea is frankly grotesc, and not inline with most tory ideology, certainly not libdem.

The problem is that for me the author has explained nothing, he has cited references tooo erm, things we already knew. The egyptian currency page on wikipedia is obviously far more important than you know, actually the facts.

Anyone got a reputable source on the matter?

[TheAnimus]

They are paid too much and whenever there's an opportunity to twist the knife in the gut of the greedy, one has to take it. I don't care about all these so-called economic immigrant wonder kids, they can sod off back under whatever stone they crawled out from, we've always had the homegrown talent to do whatever needs to be done.

Then why prey, do they spend more hiring them. It is not cheap to get the highly skilled worker visa, its even more expensive to headhunt and interview them. Once done they are almost always paid the same in local money as the local employee capable of doing the job would be.

They are not been charaties trying to even out the global wealth distrbuation, they are just in need of suitable candidates.

By definition, economic immigrants are here because the pickings are rich; if they feel they can do better elsewhere, then what and who is stopping them packing their bags and fat wallets and buggering off? Good riddance too.

And they do or will. They are here, paying UK tax, almost always the higher/highest rates (as a term of the visa lets not forget). They are going to be subsidising some dum **** up north.

But they won't leave; that's a red herring put about by the gimme-my-big-bonus crowd.

Its not true, they do. The hedge fund exodus to genevia thanks to the 50p tax rate cost the UK government £2BN from one frim I worked with previously, thats one firm alone based on two years. How much has the 50p raised, well a quick google suggests this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-tax-rate.html

I wouldn't be remotely suprised if the UK is net worse off / flat.

Money, it's hit, don't give me that do goody good bs.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

[santa claus]

Then why prey, do they spend more hiring them. It is not cheap to get the highly skilled worker visa, its even more expensive to headhunt and interview them. Once done they are almost always paid the same in local money as the local employee capable of doing the job would be.

I dunno tbh. Why do they spend £50m on one football player when someone costing a fiftieth of that could do a better job?

They are going to be subsidising some dum **** up north.

Ouch. You're gonna get flak for that!

Not sure I understand what you mean?

Ah nm. It's just a Pink Floyd lyric that seemed appropriate .